25% of SuperPAC money has come from 5 donors

GT2211 · #1 by **GT2211** » Feb 22, 2012 4:57 pm

So far a quarter of the money donated to SuperPACS has come from 5 people.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/s ... 8/1?csp=ip

And on the topic of campaign finance, here is a link comparing election spending since Lincoln. It is worth noting that it has fallen as a percentage of GDP....perhaps we need to spend more????

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/his ... -elections

willhud9 · #2 by **willhud9** » Feb 22, 2012 5:46 pm

Obama swept the '08 elections because he was able to out finance McCain's election. But this is silly. These are just primaries o.0

Jeffersonian-marxist · #3 by **Jeffersonian-marxist** » Feb 22, 2012 6:04 pm

willhud9 wrote:Obama swept the '08 elections because he was able to out finance McCain's election. But this is silly. These are just primaries o.0

He will likely win the 2012 election because of all the donations he will receive from the landed gentry along the coasts (i.e. Hollywood and Wall Street).

FACT-MAN-2 · #4 by **FACT-MAN-2** » Feb 22, 2012 7:46 pm

Jeffersonian-marxist wrote:
willhud9 wrote:Obama swept the '08 elections because he was able to out finance McCain's election. But this is silly. These are just primaries o.0

He will likely win the 2012 election because of all the donations he will receive from the landed gentry along the coasts (i.e. Hollywood and Wall Street).

Not to mention those $20 donations from millions in between.

FACT-MAN-2 · #5 by **FACT-MAN-2** » Feb 22, 2012 7:49 pm

GT2211 wrote:So far a quarter of the money donated to SuperPACS has come from 5 people.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/s ... 8/1?csp=ip

And on the topic of campaign finance, here is a link comparing election spending since Lincoln. It is worth noting that it has fallen as a percentage of GDP....perhaps we need to spend more????

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/his ... -elections

Those five men are making an investment in their futures.

Wait 'till you see their bill for favors should the R nominee win the election, it'll be ten miles long and hit every American over the head with a sledgehammer..

Dudely · #6 by **Dudely** » Feb 22, 2012 8:52 pm

Jeffersonian-marxist wrote:
willhud9 wrote:Obama swept the '08 elections because he was able to out finance McCain's election. But this is silly. These are just primaries o.0

He will likely win the 2012 election because of all the donations he will receive from the landed gentry along the coasts (i.e. Hollywood and Wall Street).

Obama has had one of the lowest average donation of any presidential candidate in a long time. The vast majority of his money came from donations <500$. There are simply not enough Hollywood stars and wall street bankers to make the math work.

Jeffersonian-marxist · #7 by **Jeffersonian-marxist** » Feb 22, 2012 9:23 pm

Dudely wrote:
Jeffersonian-marxist wrote:
willhud9 wrote:Obama swept the '08 elections because he was able to out finance McCain's election. But this is silly. These are just primaries o.0

He will likely win the 2012 election because of all the donations he will receive from the landed gentry along the coasts (i.e. Hollywood and Wall Street).

Obama has had one of the lowest average donation of any presidential candidate in a long time. The vast majority of his money came from donations <500$. There are simply not enough Hollywood stars and wall street bankers to make the math work.

Well I was talking about the upcoming election and Obama's potential with Super PACs, but I just looked at the numbers and Romney's Super PAC has raised $40 million versus Obama's which has only raised $4.5 million. I don't know if that's because the actual campaign hasn't fired up yet, or because the Wall Street types (who supported Obama over McCain in 2008) no longer support him. Either way, these details don't really matter as our "democracy" is a theatrical farce.

orpheus · #8 by **orpheus** » Feb 22, 2012 9:54 pm

This sounds like a wide open market. I should get into the business...

:popcorn:

(Uncle Orph'sTM popcorn - "Now selling presidencies! Fabulous prices!" )

Nah. Uncle Orph'sTM has more self-respect than that.

FACT-MAN-2 · #9 by **FACT-MAN-2** » Feb 23, 2012 1:24 am

Jeffersonian-marxist wrote:
Dudely wrote:
Jeffersonian-marxist wrote:
willhud9 wrote:Obama swept the '08 elections because he was able to out finance McCain's election. But this is silly. These are just primaries o.0

He will likely win the 2012 election because of all the donations he will receive from the landed gentry along the coasts (i.e. Hollywood and Wall Street).

Obama has had one of the lowest average donation of any presidential candidate in a long time. The vast majority of his money came from donations <500$. There are simply not enough Hollywood stars and wall street bankers to make the math work.

Well I was talking about the upcoming election and Obama's potential with Super PACs, but I just looked at the numbers and Romney's Super PAC has raised $40 million versus Obama's which has only raised $4.5 million. I don't know if that's because the actual campaign hasn't fired up yet, or because the Wall Street types (who supported Obama over McCain in 2008) no longer support him. Either way, these details don't really matter as our "democracy" is a theatrical farce.

Obama's campaign is fully up and running, headquartered in Chicago. They've set a goal of $1 billion for their campaign war chest and appear to be well on their way to achieving that. They came late with their SuperPac, which is why that number is as low as it is. Where Obama is raising a load of dough is from the $50 and $100 donations that are pouring in from millions right across the country, a phenomenon that's not gotten any media attention or coverage to speak of.

It doesn't appear that Obama will be outspent on this campaign when all is said and done.

HughMcB · **#10** by **HughMcB** » Feb 23, 2012 5:26 am

willhud9 wrote:Obama swept the '08 elections because he was able to out finance McCain's Clinton's election. Palin finished off McCain. But this is silly. These are just primaries o.0

willhud9 · **#11** by **willhud9** » Feb 23, 2012 5:36 am

HughMcB wrote:
willhud9 wrote:Obama swept the '08 elections because he was able to out finance McCain's Clinton's election. Palin finished off McCain. But this is silly. These are just primaries o.0

Fair enough.

UtilityMonster · **#12** by **UtilityMonster** » Feb 23, 2012 6:35 am

Does anyone wonder why those wealthy donors waste their money? I mean, $20 million to Newt Gingrich? What is he getting in return, head?

GT2211 · **#13** by **GT2211** » Feb 24, 2012 5:10 pm

UtilityMonster wrote:Does anyone wonder why those wealthy donors waste their money? I mean, $20 million to Newt Gingrich? What is he getting in return, head?

I find it strange to give such a large sum of money to someone who has such a small chance of becoming the nominee.

But it seems that each of the major candidates have their own billionaire at this point funding their campaigns.
Robert Reich wrote on it as well the other day.

The GOP's Big Investor's-Have you heard of William Dore, Foster Friess, Sheldon Adelson, Harold Simmons, Peter Thiel, or Bruce Kovner? If not, let me introduce them to you. They’re running for the Republican nomination for president.

I know, I know. You think Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney are running. They are – but only because the people listed in the first paragraph have given them huge sums of money to do so. In a sense, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, and Romney are the fronts. Dore et al. are the real investors....

http://robertreich.org/post/18021562021

Newt's Gingrichs entire campaign has practically been funded by one person.

Anyway Bill Maher announced he was donating one million dollars to Obama's SuperPAC on his show the other night.

Joe09 · **#14** by **Joe09** » Feb 24, 2012 5:35 pm

is there any sort of statistic comparison of how much countries spend on general elections?

i want to wish the money thrown around by america when compared with other countries is not that out of the norm

why? because if it wasn't then to me it seems like a crime against the homeless, the poor, the elderly, the disabled, that politicians openly spend so much money to make them look good when that money could be put to better use

hell i wouldn't really condemn USA alone in that respect either really

GT2211 · **#15** by **GT2211** » Feb 24, 2012 5:51 pm

I read that the cost of the elections in 2008 was about 5billion for the US while in Canada it was approx 300mil. The US has roughly ten times the population as Canada also turnout was pretty strong for the US in 2008 and we had fewer elections leading up to it.

http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594

I would be interested in seeing any studies that compared the costs of elections as well, but I would guess that for much of the world we do, in fact, spend a lot more.

Dudely · **#16** by **Dudely** » Mar 01, 2012 2:30 pm

UtilityMonster wrote:Does anyone wonder why those wealthy donors waste their money? I mean, $20 million to Newt Gingrich? What is he getting in return, head?

The people who supported GWB got quite a bit out of it when he gave them a nice big tax cut. Plus if you've managed to convince yourself that it's good for the economy you could even convince yourself that you're doing the right thing.